grizzly4life said:i don't have too much experience with this.... but i think it's a combination between your club overating you and a fair number of people sandbagging i.e. playing way lower than they should be (and i would say alot more than the winner/finalist, assuming a 32 or 64 tournament).......
RiosTheGenius said:there is a whole world of differences between 3.5 and 4.5 ....
cghipp said:I think you can get to the same rating a lot of different ways. I've got great strokes that would look like a 4.5 if you were just looking at them in isolation, but I'm out of shape and prone to massive brain cramping, so I'm just on the 3.5/4.0 border. One of my mixed partners is a 4.5, but you wouldn't look at his strokes and think they were anything special. They're good, they're consistent, but they're not jaw-dropping. But he's got a fantastic mental game, and always seems to be in the right place on the court, making the smart shot. My husband is practically beginner and not especially athletic, but he can take a lot of games off me and even beat me once in a rare while, because he has lightning speed and reflexes. Still other players seem to win through sheer force of will, or don't play up to their potential because they don't care enough or fall apart when they get stressed.
One thing I've learned is, it doesn't matter at all how people's game looks in the warm up. They may be hitting penetrating topspin shots or laser serves, but can they do it in a match? I've seen people warm up like a 4.5 and then freeze during a match. And the reverse happens too, of course.
All this is to say that I agree that a lot of players look underrated when you go strictly by the USTA guidelines, but so much more goes into winning than having various strokes, having a weapon, and even being consistent. And of course, when you see people who obviously have the whole package and are beating people at their level right and left, they are either sandbagging, or they're just playing out of their mind at that time (people can go on streaks), or the ratings just haven't caught up to them yet. About ten years ago I was the #1 3.0 in NC (yeah, I know - big whoop) after playing a few tournaments, and it took a couple of years, if I'm remembering correctly, to be bumped to 3.5. I went ahead and started playing 3.5 anyway, but it did seem odd. The pool must have been very shallow!
kevhen said:Yep all the 4.0s that were winning matches in my tourney weren't hitting at 5.0 pace, more like 3.5 pace but at a 4.5 consistency level.
chess9 said:I have played a gazillion tournaments and I think the only conclusion one can draw is that fitness and sharpness can vary so wildly that the NTRP rating system is trash. As the levels rise, the impact of a small decline in fitness or lack of playing time is large. Thus, a guy who is a 5.0 serve and volley player who has had 2 months off or has a just slightly sore shoulder is going to be lucky to be playing at 4.0. Likewise, the reverse problem can be found in the lower ranks. Often we see younger players (and a few older newbies) improving so fast that their NTRP rating is 1-1.5 points behind their actual playing level. Perhaps it can be demonstrated that for 50% of U.S. players the rating system is valid 50% of the time, but I'd be astonished if reliability of the system is that high.
The similar system in England is total rubbish.
The notion that everything can be quantified is nonsense. Can you quantify the petulance of Roger Federer, or the courage of Nadal?
Please scrap that system.
-Robert
MoneyBall said:I think it's the opposite, people over rate themselves. I won a 3.5 tourney in Los Angeles 6 months ago. It was my first USTA tourney..After reading the description of skills, I thought I was at the 3.5 level...(I have only been playing for like a year at that time). It was so easy..I won without droping a set. The only guy that gave me a little of a hard time was a guy who also played in the 4.0 class andreached the final. Some players are just plain bad and do not fit the NRTP rating of 3.5.. I have seen 3.5 matches adjacent to me that lasted 2 plus hours..Sledom do guys at 3.5 hit with pace. Pushing each other back and forth, it was just ugly. NTRP should have this description for 3.5 players.
If I enter any tourney it's going to be open..need to work on my game in order to complete at that level.
omktid said:Good observations. Why scrap the system? It seems to work, reword the guidelines perhaps? What would be a good system that would yeild a better categorization?
omktid said:BB, Chess9 too bad about your accidents, inspiring stuff about your recovery. Hope you guys recover fully to enjoy tennis for a long time to come.
BTW, for what it is worth at my club they have this nice nova grass (carpet) mixed with clay and it really easy on the body.
I used to play a lot of city league tennis in Charlotte, but now I'm playing mostly at the new Rock Hill Tennis Center, which is very nice. I also played in the Columbia, SC city leagues a while back when I lived there. Those leagues are a lot of fun. The city and club teams play each other and the matches are very social, usually with beer and food after the match. In fact, my old Columbia team was sponsored by the Village Idiot (pizza/sandwich place in Five Points, Cola.) and they were extremely generous to us. I miss that league! I'll probably get back into the Charlotte leagues now that I'm working here again. What about you?tennis-n-sc said:CG, where do play out of?
grizzly4life said:haven't read the entire thread.... but if you do well at a certain level tournament, do you have to move up?? is there a rule like that??
interesting comment on the men moving down and the women moving up..... i know a woman who was in the 3.5 club T as #1 seeed, lost in first round, went up to 4.0 as #1 seed, lost in first round and wants to move up to 4.5 because it will suit her game. she probably has the pace for 4.5 and somewhat the consistency, but that's about it.